/sci/ - Science & Math

Here's just a question to throw out there. If you were so small that an atom seemed huge, and you had some way of visualising it was possible, what do you think it would look like?

>>9682650
>Non sequitur.
It's a change in a medium that is composed of never ending change. Nothing is traveling.
>A ripple has horizontal motion across the surface and vertical motion through the surface.
Surface of what? Composed of what? Other "Waves"? WAVES OF WHAT? They travels across themselves?

>Thus objects of the same mass have the same resistance to a change in motion regardless of their motion.
No. If this was the case then gyroscopes would topple no matter how fast the were spun.They would also not resist changes in their coherency. Two of the same gyroscopes both "weigh" the same don't they? What if we spun one?. which one has more inertia? The spinning gyro obviously. But how can that be? It's in motion!
It isn't "traveling" anywhere. It is setting up the phenomena of creating inertia with coherent motion.
Gravity (Inertia) is an ACCELERATION, but towards what? An INERT center. Motion will continue to accelerate towards this center effectively "accelerating towards inertness". It is "Losing motion" even though it's accelerating. To regain motion once more, the inertia must go.

>You are certifiably mentally ill if you think a lick of this makes any sense.
The only thing keeping the stone from flying off is an INERT center. The quality of coherent motion makes the stones rotational inertia far greater than it ever would have been as just a stone.

>Non sequitur. Sound being produced by the string traveling through the air is traveling.
It's affecting the medium. It changes the quality of it.

>Because it satisfies the definition discussed above. It also travels, destroying your "argument" once again.
Inertia and motion do not by themselves or even together as a "wave" classify as something that "travels". We are once again back to trying to reify a "wave" as a thing opposed to what something is doing. The something is "waving", the "wave" being "change" via motion and inertia.

>This is so silly.
Measurements aren't causes or effects.

>>9481033
>Where's your proof of gravity forming celestial objects into spheres?
Where is the proof of gravity to begin with? I used the example of magnets for a reason.

Everything you said was unnecessary rambling of known concepts but none of it proves that gravity shaped the earth into a sphere. Where is proof of objects forming spheres even (inb4 you post something i'm going to easily debunk that you think is proof)

Fucking magnetism. You are not going to debunk the known forces of magnetism for it is the very reason you're posting on this device currently.

>Where is proof of objects forming spheres.

Okay okay, self replicating self-similar holographic toroids, Jesus.

>>9427741
one word verses everyone's answer that equates to the same word. For what purpose?


>>9431676
Yes, that is why inertia dictates it, without it there would be no change. Inertia is what causes entropy not to occur and the cycle to continue. It is balanced to never begin or end with inertia being the "never begging" aspect and change being "never ending".

>>8763094

we have made contact. i repeat we have made contact. first contact has been made. please advise.

>>7329432
don't make changing people's minds your priority
especially with the little bit of info you tossed around the subject. I am a hermet myself. also everything we do is a balloon

>>6427392

Hi /sci/

Has anyone seen the film;
THRIVE: What On Earth Will It Take?

If so what were your views on it?

Link to film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s

>>5355344
bump

also how would you take the critical points of a function f(x,y) using partial derivatives?

there is no outside. creation creating itself to inhabit, question, and propagate itself so that it can create itself again later to create itse.....

What is the name of this shape, and why is it important?

So I was thinking, if Torque's magnitude is perpendicular to the smallest angle between it's 'R' and 'F'.

Does this mean if you have R and F being 3-dimensional, you can make an object have torque in the 4th dimension?

Perhaps a Hyper-lever that can unlock safes without opening them?

hey /sci/.

9 year old dog I've been living with since I was 10 died on his birthday a couple days ago suddenly from a leak in his heart. I've been crying incessantly, and to make matters worse, I have a pre-calculus test tomorrow that will probably make me fail the class.

Do any of you guys have some advice for dealing with conics such as Parabolas, Hyperbolas, and Ellipses, as well as Polar Equations?

Thank you